Leaderboard

Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation on 09/21/22 in all areas

  1. I've spent some more time thinking about this. And I'd like to add some things to the conversation. Many people in the Church believe that everything Joseph wrote in what we have today as the JST is a full and complete "correction". Well, they are wrong on two accounts. He never actually completed all of his markups. He was martyred before that was done. While he restored much that was lost (e.g. Matt 24) many of his markups were simply commentary & clarifications. They weren't meant to be "corrections" at all. There is a very famous volume known as the "Matthew Henry Commentary". It is considered the hallmark of Biblical commentaries throughout Christianity today. It appears that many of the comments and clarifications that Joseph wrote were nearly word-for-word copies of some of M.H.'s commentary. Some items, it seems, were not KJV mistranslations, but because Joseph was commenting that FOR OUR DAY, the scriptures would be worded a bit differently. 1 Tim 2 is a controversial chapter because it tells women to shut up and do what their husbands tell them to do. (Eph 5:22 also is one that the woke crowd uses to justify the claim that the Bible was clearly written by bigoted men. Forget about verse 21 or 25, that will ruin their narrative.) I took a closer look at 1 Tim 2:15 in various translations. Some translations will justify this connection of "she" (in the first phrase) and "they" (in the second phrase) by using "women" in place of "she". But the Greek clearly does not say that. The Greek texts clearly show a third person singular inflection for "she" and third person plural for "they". So, what are we to make of this? Many Saints will look at the JST and reckon that the version we have is simply a later version that didn't preserve the correct word. I think that is a mistake. I believe that the translation we have in the KJV is correct as it stands. That is probably what Paul wrote. As I stated in my previous post, I believe it was more of a commentary to update it for our dispensation rather than a correction of what our current texts say. There was counsel in that chapter about not wearing flagrant jewelry or hair styles, etc. But as a rule men simply didn't do that back then. It is only in today's society of luxury and opulence do men even have the notion of doing so. They have historically men doing so have been outliers. But since the renaissance? Especially in the last 50 years? Yes, men need to have the same counsel. Let me bring you back to the last phrase of the chapter. "...if THEY shall continue..." It was always about the unity of husband and wife. And if women have a particular problem, it is the prophet's job to shut women down. If men have a particular problem, it is the prophet's job to shut them down. I can't tell you how many Priesthood sessions of General Conference we've had that basically yelled at men to stop practicing unrighteous dominion. I would very often speak with Empress after every general conference to see if I was guilty of any of these behaviors that I'd just been lectured about. Most of the time, no. But there were times when she said yes. And I'd make efforts to correct it. But do we hear much of that being given to women? It is common to believe that we now have split priesthood and "women's" sessions in General Conference because of "wokeness" entering into the Church. I don't think so. I've read the Ensign after conference. And I find it interesting how many times I hear similar "unrighteous dominion" type comments now being given to women. It may be veiled. But it is there. Before, it was more like "stop being so hard on yourselves." Now it is more like, "Women of the Church have a responsibility to..." And sometimes, it isn't all sunshine and roses. So, it if it was really giving in to wokeness, I'd say -- Be careful what you wish for. You may get it.
    1 point
  2. The problem with some who homeschool is the same as the problem with some who use public schools, which is the same as the problem with every human being: Taking responsibility. To take responsibility for your children's education does not mean simply disenrolling them from public school. That may be a first step, but there are ten thousand more steps after that. People want to check something off their checklist and have it done with. For many things, that works. For educating your child, it does not. Homeschooling is not a discrete activity. Homeschooling is best described as a lifestyle. Life itself becomes the school. Topics are not taught individually, divorced from their application in life; rather, the child is introduced to life's tasks and wonders in the context of the skills being taught, e.g. math. There are those who listen to people (like me, perhaps) who decry the state of public education and suggest that homeschooling might be the best possible alternative. Those people, in a fit of pique, might then pull their children from the public schools. This in itself is not bad, and could be the first step to something good. But again, steps 2 through 10,001 must be taken, or the children are little better off than they were, and in at least some cases are actually worse off. Homeschooling is not an event. Homeschooling is a lifestyle choice. You don't have to be perfect at it, just as you don't have to be perfect at any life choice you make, at least to begin with. You simply need to be dedicated to the tasks before you and humble enough to see when you're wrong or don't know what you're doing and get help. In my view, what we call "homeschooling" is really just family and friends taking care of each other, the way God intended us to live. If you give honest effort, you will very probably be okay and your children will benefit greatly from your sacrifices. If you think you can simply hand the kids a book and the TV remote, your children will get few if any benefits from your efforts. I'm an advocate and perhaps an evangelist for homeschooling. But implicit in that advocacy is the idea that you actually homeschool your children.
    1 point
  3. NeuroTypical

    BYU vs. Oregon

    I haven't been to a BYU basketball game in, well, ever. But do the opposing fans still hold up large banners/posters of girls in bikinis behind the basket, when a BYU player is trying to make free throws? Because that appeared to be all the rage in the '90's (when I last payed attention).
    0 points